Jump to content

Congratulations, Sen. Scott Brown - Mass. (R)


TypeO

Recommended Posts

Clinton benefited from an economy which recovered from the early '90s recession, and a relatively stable world stage.

Obama inherited a nation at war and campaigned on a socialist agenda that has accelerated a global economic tailspin.

from all indications, the economy is starting to rebound, so we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an Independent as I find good and bad in both parties. The people in Washington need to stop thinking of their own agendas and take the best from both parties and have a People agenda.

IMHO I personally think it is to early to judge Obama. I will give it another year as he walked into a nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

finally, someone says exactly the same thing that i feel. Of course, both being from Detroit/SE Michigan, we've seen the devastation firsthand. Unemployment double and even triple the national average. The city of Pontiac is at 35% and growing. Yea, that's right. I think they made cars there once. And to think, the Republican candidate was in favor of letting 2 of the big 3 go out of business, but was in favor of rescuing fat cat bankers so they can award themselves big ass bonuses.

Yeah, me too. That being said, handing Ford and GM a giant check just to stay alive would be doing more harm than good. That's easily understood economics (unless you're a Keynsian or something). Sometimes transitions a pain in the ass and I really do feel sorry for all the people being affected, but in the long run, bailouts and universal healthcare are screwing a lot more people than it is helping in the short run.

I agree that Obama has been pussified and i'm dissappointed as hell that he didn't get this health care plan wrapped, packed and shipped by now. He needs to take a lesson from his predecessor and just do it and not worry what in hell anyone from the other side of the aisle thinks. No matter what he does isn't going to be right or satisfying to them, so might as well piss them off.

And that's the problem with American politics. To some people, it's just a fucking game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an Independent as I find good and bad in both parties. The people in Washington need to stop thinking of their own agendas and take the best from both parties and have a People agenda.

IMHO I personally think it is to early to judge Obama. I will give it another year as he walked into a nightmare.

Sure as hell wasn't too early to bitch about Bush for most people. But mention Obama's failures and they'll scream rape

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um.. it's not simply electing another Republican to a major office. The Democrats no longer has a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. That's a pretty HUGE purpose if you ask me.

Right, for the short term. The Democrats can still pass the bill if they wanted but now the problem is many middle Dems are pulling out. The only one who seems gun-ho is Pelosi, not surprisingly.

As for Brown, the core Republican Party has no interest in moderates because since the bitter defeat of McCain (a moderate), they feel they need a more conservative candidate to win back their version of the country. That will be their downfall because no one wants a hard-lined President, eventhough we have one now. The conservatives are still reeling from the utter embarrassment that was George W. Bush, probably the most fiscally-liberal Republican we've seen in modern times. That's why someone like Sarah Palin, a drastically unqualified politician, is such a rock star for them. She keeps it simple in terms of what to do and for people looking for simplicity, she's a hit. And in the age of Obama and Palin, having political credentials is no longer the must-have repertoire. It's all about selling an image, a brand..and well, that's American politics 101.

The funny thing is people who voted for Obama who now doubt him won't vote for a hard-right Republican or hard-left Democrat in the 2010 election. I would not be surprised if they instead voted independent or libertarian. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the core Republican Party has no interest in moderates because since the bitter defeat of McCain (a moderate), they feel they need a more conservative candidate to win back their version of the country. That will be their downfall because no one wants a hard-lined President, eventhough we have one now.

Agreed. The reason McCain Lost was because he tried to appease the right-wingers in the Republican party, and as a result, came off to the voters as someone who was more conservative than what they were willing to elect. If the Republican Party continues to steer further towards the right and in the process alienates the moderates within the party, and Independant voters, it will fail as a political party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, me too. That being said, handing Ford and GM a giant check just to stay alive would be doing more harm than good. That's easily understood economics (unless you're a Keynsian or something). Sometimes transitions a pain in the ass and I really do feel sorry for all the people being affected, but in the long run, bailouts and universal healthcare are screwing a lot more people than it is helping in the short run.

And that's the problem with American politics. To some people, it's just a fucking game.

I can't say that I agree with that. In 1979, Chrysler (led by Lee Iaccoca)was rescued from bankruptcy by gov't loans that were paid back in full and the company prospered for several years after. The same can be done now. The key is the leadership and if the money is spent wisely. From all indications, the new cars in development now will be able to compete with the foreign companies for a larger share of the US market. Also, i'm not naive enough to think that the car companies will ever be restored to their former glory, but to lose them altogether would be catastrophic for this area. Brining in the movie industry for the short term isn't going to cut it and no other large industry seems to be interested.

Politics has always been a game and btw, Ford never received any bailout money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an Independent as I find good and bad in both parties. The people in Washington need to stop thinking of their own agendas and take the best from both parties and have a People agenda.

IMHO I personally think it is to early to judge Obama. I will give it another year as he walked into a nightmare.

DeborahJ, I think most people are "independent". I, too, am registered as such, but the older I get the more I realize that is not how the game is played. A People agenda? Good luck. I will never see a viable third party in my life time.

As for judging a President on their first year... That is totally appropriate, and that practice has been common place since the very beginning.

It's a date, one year from today. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say that I agree with that. In 1979, Chrysler (led by Lee Iaccoca)was rescued from bankruptcy by gov't loans that were paid back in full and the company prospered for several years after.

So we're expected to just keep rescuing companies every time they fall? When would be ok to let a company go under then? If they're just going to keep falling, it's best that they die. That's how the market works. And besides, that's a totally different situation. People just aren't buying cars too often these days. Even foreign companies are getting hammered.

The same can be done now. The key is the leadership and if the money is spent wisely.

What makes you think that GM and Chrysler, who have fallen so far in the last few decades, are just going to magically become models of business excellence?

From all indications, the new cars in development now will be able to compete with the foreign companies for a larger share of the US market. Also, i'm not naive enough to think that the car companies will ever be restored to their former glory, but to lose them altogether would be catastrophic for this area.

You're right, but artifically keeping them afloat at the cost of everyone who isn't even purchasing a vehicle from them is damn near robbery.

Brining in the movie industry for the short term isn't going to cut it and no other large industry seems to be interested.

Michigan FTL.

Politics has always been a game and btw, Ford never received any bailout money.

Yeah I know they didn't I have no qualms with Ford. I take issue with companies that whine and cry to Congress because they're failing, just like thousands of American companies but these guys get their asses saved, despite being terrible businessmen. If you can't keep the money flowing, apparently it's cool to just ask the government and they will provide.

Big government rocks!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DeborahJ, I think most people are "independent". I, too, am registered as such, but the older I get the more I realize that is not how the game is played. A People agenda? Good luck. I will never see a viable third party in my life time.

As for judging a President on their first year... That is totally appropriate, and that practice has been common place since the very beginning.

It's a date, one year from today. ;)

While I respect your opinion,I disagree. Most people are still registered Republican or Democrat. I brought a son into this world and it matters to me what he is going to face, so I don't want to "play the game". Like you I may never see another party in my lifetime, but I will fight for this for my sons sake.

While I do not agree with quite a bit of what Obama has done, I think what he walked into cannot be fixed in a year or many years IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with you Deborah. I have brought a son into this world and am working towards it being a better place for his future - no matter what political party is in place. As far as Sen. Brown being put in place, I don't see it as a deal breaker for the Dems because they can't get their crap together enough to put something through Congress anyway - even with a majority. Both parties seem to be self-serving and not doing what's best for the country as a whole nation.

As far as the Bush didn't get a chance statement - a year into his presidency he had some of the highest approval ratings in modern times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with you Deborah. I have brought a son into this world and am working towards it being a better place for his future - no matter what political party is in place. As far as Sen. Brown being put in place, I don't see it as a deal breaker for the Dems because they can't get their crap together enough to put something through Congress anyway - even with a majority. Both parties seem to be self-serving and not doing what's best for the country as a whole nation.

As far as the Bush didn't get a chance statement - a year into his presidency he had some of the highest approval ratings in modern times.

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." ~ Mark Twain.

Approval ratings don't mean jack when America has become this stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama's answer: more populism

by Nolan Finley

Last Updated: January 24. 2010 1:22AM

Incredibly, the message President Barack Obama is hearing from the revolution in Massachusetts is that fitful Americans want more of the same: more populism, which means a more expansive government that is more intrusive in private markets, which means more spending and more taxes, which means more economic stagnation, which means more unemployment.

In other words, more of everything that's got the electorate already so agitated.

Obama's response to the Democrat's Bay State rebuke was to grab a pitchfork and try to elbow to the head of the mob. It's the greedy bankers you're angry with and not me, he insisted, vowing to renew his war on Wall Street with a vengeful vigor.

It would be easy to assign his denial to tone deafness. It goes beyond that. It's a stubborn resistance to recognize that America doesn't want to go where he's trying to lead it.

Obama is still taking his counsel from the leftist ideologues who are telling him that the trouble isn't that he's too liberal, but not liberal enough.

Two of his most trusted economic advisers, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council chief Larry Summers, urged him not to pitch his punitive tax on large banks, warning it would further bind a credit market already seized up by new regulations. that discourage lending.

He ignored them and listened instead to those who advised going on the offensive to deflect heat from himself and Congress' liberal leadership. Wall Street is too easy a target for a president in trouble. So he flogged the banks.

Wall Street responded as Geithner and Summers feared. Stock markets plunged in anticipation of the negative impact of Obama's bank-busting plot.

If that becomes a trend, investors will know who to blame for the reversal of their recent 401(k) gains.

Obama is repeating the mistakes of Franklin Roosevelt, who worsened the Great Depression by demonizing private industry and overexpanding the reach of government.

Instead of putting an end to the spending orgy in Washington, the president was back on the campaign stump in Ohio promising a second stimulus package that doubles down on the failed first one. He'll keep trying to create jobs and spark an economic revival with massive spending on welfare and public works projects.

Expect him to attack the deficit not with fiscal restraint, but by raising taxes on investors and job creators.

This may not be a president capable of changing course, as Bill Clinton did when voters spanked him in 1994. He's not likely to waver from the conviction that government should be the dominant force in American society. What he can't do through legislation now that he's lost his Senate supermajority, he can do through regulation.

It will take more than the loss of a Massachusetts Senate seat to make Barack Obama abandon his mission of remaking America into something Americans won't recognize.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.c...m#ixzz0dXDq8ntb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama's answer: more populism

by Nolan Finley

Last Updated: January 24. 2010 1:22AM

Incredibly, the message President Barack Obama is hearing from the revolution in Massachusetts is that fitful Americans want more of the same: more populism, which means a more expansive government that is more intrusive in private markets, which means more spending and more taxes, which means more economic stagnation, which means more unemployment.

In other words, more of everything that's got the electorate already so agitated.

Obama's response to the Democrat's Bay State rebuke was to grab a pitchfork and try to elbow to the head of the mob. It's the greedy bankers you're angry with and not me, he insisted, vowing to renew his war on Wall Street with a vengeful vigor.

It would be easy to assign his denial to tone deafness. It goes beyond that. It's a stubborn resistance to recognize that America doesn't want to go where he's trying to lead it.

Obama is still taking his counsel from the leftist ideologues who are telling him that the trouble isn't that he's too liberal, but not liberal enough.

Two of his most trusted economic advisers, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council chief Larry Summers, urged him not to pitch his punitive tax on large banks, warning it would further bind a credit market already seized up by new regulations. that discourage lending.

He ignored them and listened instead to those who advised going on the offensive to deflect heat from himself and Congress' liberal leadership. Wall Street is too easy a target for a president in trouble. So he flogged the banks.

Wall Street responded as Geithner and Summers feared. Stock markets plunged in anticipation of the negative impact of Obama's bank-busting plot.

If that becomes a trend, investors will know who to blame for the reversal of their recent 401(k) gains.

Obama is repeating the mistakes of Franklin Roosevelt, who worsened the Great Depression by demonizing private industry and overexpanding the reach of government.

Instead of putting an end to the spending orgy in Washington, the president was back on the campaign stump in Ohio promising a second stimulus package that doubles down on the failed first one. He'll keep trying to create jobs and spark an economic revival with massive spending on welfare and public works projects.

Expect him to attack the deficit not with fiscal restraint, but by raising taxes on investors and job creators.

This may not be a president capable of changing course, as Bill Clinton did when voters spanked him in 1994. He's not likely to waver from the conviction that government should be the dominant force in American society. What he can't do through legislation now that he's lost his Senate supermajority, he can do through regulation.

It will take more than the loss of a Massachusetts Senate seat to make Barack Obama abandon his mission of remaking America into something Americans won't recognize.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.c...m#ixzz0dXDq8ntb

What a spot on article!

The president can't count on the super-majority in the Senate anymore to cram his crap down the people's throats, so he has turned to using restrictive regulations to push his agenda. Why is he just now turning to regulating and taxing the big banks? He could have done that a year or so ago. If it needed to be done, why did he wait so long to take this action, after millions more people's houses have been foreclosed on since he became president? He's not interested in helping the American citizens. He's just interested in gaining more power for the federal government. The more dependent the population is on the government for life, the more power the government and the dems have over the people. That's the democratic party's modus operandi. And the more taxes that he imposes on business, the less jobs there will be, as business owners will have to get rid of employee wages to save money to pay the taxes.

And his most recent proposal is hurting the average American. With this week's fall of the stock market and the further losses in 401K funds, he is further inciting the people against him and his party. His vengence on the banks (against advice of his advisors) and this power play after losing the Senate seat is hurting, not helping the economic recovery.

And with the recent increase in "chatter" from the terrorist groups, I feel that he will soon be tested by them. God help us.

The only jobs that I see being created in Ohio are in construction of government subsidzed low income housing units. More people needing government help in affording a place to live. Soon, government housing will be the only option as no one will be able to afford a home due to job losses, with no new ones on the horizon. All the jobs have gone to China and Mexico. Keep buying that crap from Wal-Mart. Maybe there will be a job availabe there, and then the government can pay for your health care with Medicaid. I don't see the government forcing Wal-Mart to provide health insurance for their employees. Maybe the government can recover the money from taxing the Walton (Wal-Mart) family, all who are on the top ten list of richest Americans. Oh, right, "only the little people pay taxes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most blatant 180s the dems have pulled was on "rushing" through Obamacare.

Only a couple months ago Harry Reid and the dems were using analogies of opponents of civil rights legislation who called for not going so fast.

Now a bunch of them are calling for a halt/breather/slowdown on the same Obamacare legislation now that they've lost their super-majority.

This is the same outcry that the Tea Parties were making - and being labeled racists for - that only now are dems supposedly recognizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...